3 ms·

>They are total hypocrites Maybe they are angry because people are coming illegally.

vkou 10y ago
You're right - a descendant of French immigrants has quite the leg to stand on. After all, his great-grandparents legally entered the country... At the time when undesirables, like Chinese, Indians, and the Polish were barred from entry. But at least the Frenchmen came legally! Sure, entry was granted under an extremely racist immigration law, but the legality is what gives him the moral high ground to stand on.
- randothrowaway 10y ago
  Under your rational then you should be pro building a wall as currently illegal immigration is a default "racist" policy that encourages those from central America while discriminating against Indians and Chinese. Build the wall and regulate immigration so more Indians and Chinese come relative to their world population.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Current immigration policy is racist, yes. It's dehumanizing to the people here illegally, and it's not fair by any means. My point is that legality is a fig leaf. When your definition for "legally" is "My ancestors got on a boat, and were white," it holds no weight. "Hurr, durr, build a wall to keep them out", and "Keep America Christian" does nothing to resolve it. If you actually give a shit about either, then backing Trump (Or the other big names from the 2016 Republican line) is backing the wrong horse. Even more ironically, two of the other candidates (Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio) are the descendants of Cuban refugees... And any Cuban entering the US can immediately apply for permanent residency. No questions asked. Strangely, they oppose the same privilege to people fleeing repression/drug cartels/terrible poverty in the rest of Central America.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
winter_blue 10y ago
You are being dishonest if you think it's about legality. It's not about that. It's about the race of the immigrants. If all our illegal immigrants were from Germany and Ireland, I am certain that there would be far less complaining. In fact most of the angry people today would not be fighting to keep them out -- they'd be fighting for visas for them.
- randothrowaway 10y ago
  You think pro illegal immigration congressman Luis Gutierrez and the Catholic churches harboring those here illegally would be doing so if most people here coming illegally were from India and Hindu or Sikh?
  - winter_blue 10y ago
    Yes, I do. There are plenty of non-Hispanic white congressmen who take the same stance as Luis Gutierrez. The truth is that the people behind most of this anti-immigrant rhetoric can't see the humanity of someone who is not of their same skin color. When they call a human being "an illegal" -- it's dehumanizing, and it plainly reveals they don't see their common shared humanity. I've noticed it in the language they use, and they way they talk about other people -- and not just immigrants, but black Americans as well. They simply do not see other races as people like themselves. I absolutely do not think that Luis Gutierrez is someone that is just looking out for "his own people", as you seem to be implying.
    - zeveb 10y ago
      > When they call a human being "an illegal" -- it's dehumanizing … No, it's an accurate, dry, legal characterisation of someone present in the country illegally, much like referring to someone who has murdered someone else as 'a murderer,' or to someone who has shoplifted as 'a shoplifter.' I'm actually philosophically inclined towards completely open borders (although I have some deep concerns about what that does to community & culture), but an alien who is present illegally is truly an illegal alien. Words mean things, and that's what those words mean.

vkou 10y ago

You're right - a descendant of French immigrants has quite the leg to stand on. After all, his great-grandparents legally entered the country... At the time when undesirables, like Chinese, Indians, and the Polish were barred from entry. But at least the Frenchmen came legally! Sure, entry was granted under an extremely racist immigration law, but the legality is what gives him the moral high ground to stand on.

randothrowaway 10y ago
Under your rational then you should be pro building a wall as currently illegal immigration is a default "racist" policy that encourages those from central America while discriminating against Indians and Chinese. Build the wall and regulate immigration so more Indians and Chinese come relative to their world population.
- vkou 10y ago
  Current immigration policy is racist, yes. It's dehumanizing to the people here illegally, and it's not fair by any means. My point is that legality is a fig leaf. When your definition for "legally" is "My ancestors got on a boat, and were white," it holds no weight. "Hurr, durr, build a wall to keep them out", and "Keep America Christian" does nothing to resolve it. If you actually give a shit about either, then backing Trump (Or the other big names from the 2016 Republican line) is backing the wrong horse. Even more ironically, two of the other candidates (Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio) are the descendants of Cuban refugees... And any Cuban entering the US can immediately apply for permanent residency. No questions asked. Strangely, they oppose the same privilege to people fleeing repression/drug cartels/terrible poverty in the rest of Central America.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

winter_blue 10y ago

You are being dishonest if you think it's about legality. It's not about that. It's about the race of the immigrants. If all our illegal immigrants were from Germany and Ireland, I am certain that there would be far less complaining. In fact most of the angry people today would not be fighting to keep them out -- they'd be fighting for visas for them.

randothrowaway 10y ago
You think pro illegal immigration congressman Luis Gutierrez and the Catholic churches harboring those here illegally would be doing so if most people here coming illegally were from India and Hindu or Sikh?
- winter_blue 10y ago
  Yes, I do. There are plenty of non-Hispanic white congressmen who take the same stance as Luis Gutierrez. The truth is that the people behind most of this anti-immigrant rhetoric can't see the humanity of someone who is not of their same skin color. When they call a human being "an illegal" -- it's dehumanizing, and it plainly reveals they don't see their common shared humanity. I've noticed it in the language they use, and they way they talk about other people -- and not just immigrants, but black Americans as well. They simply do not see other races as people like themselves. I absolutely do not think that Luis Gutierrez is someone that is just looking out for "his own people", as you seem to be implying.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > When they call a human being "an illegal" -- it's dehumanizing … No, it's an accurate, dry, legal characterisation of someone present in the country illegally, much like referring to someone who has murdered someone else as 'a murderer,' or to someone who has shoplifted as 'a shoplifter.' I'm actually philosophically inclined towards completely open borders (although I have some deep concerns about what that does to community & culture), but an alien who is present illegally is truly an illegal alien. Words mean things, and that's what those words mean.